• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

New Formats for Raleigh/Greensboro

While I can't say the AM Stereo situation was ideal in that it had everyone behind it (not to mention the different variations on the technology truly being it's death knell), it did have many of the industry's big names at the time behind one version or another, and they couldn't make it work. What's to say IB(A)C will be any different?

On top of that, it's much less expensive to stream online than it is to revamp your entire airchain (which, by the way slogan, only requires a new transmitter if the one you have is older and incompatible... many existing transmitters work just fine with HD exciters). It's even less expensive to add an additional Internet stream than it would be to buy into iBiquity's technology just to be able to multicast. And while two hundred grand may be inexpensive for a good number of stations in larger markets such as Raleigh and Greensboro, the little mom 'n pops (including the smaller stations in larger cities) across the country won't be able to afford IB(A)C. On the other hand, even some of the smaller stations in small markets are already streaming online.

Think about it: a previously existing technology that's already years ahead of HD Radio in affordability, quality and, most importantly, acceptance. And IB(A)C is supposed to magically become the dominant force? That doesn't add up.
 
The biggest problem for streaming is the royalty issue. The RIAA deal can make it mighty expensive for stations to stream. My idea would be to have a rights structure more like the over-the-air deal and require stations to require stream listeners to login with their zipcode. Then block the stream if the zip is out of the ADI. Truth is, most stations could care less about broadcasting "world wide" but really wants to stream to penetrate the large buildings downtown!
 
Eventually there's going to be enough public pressure that the RIAA is going to have to give in to what people living here in reality want: free Internet radio that provides an alternative to what they're getting over the air. The OTA deal online would work... minus the ZIP code requirement. Part of the idea is to be able to listen to any station from around the world... that would defeat the purpose. Stations may not care about broadcasting worldwide, but the people listening to them do.
 
RIAA could care less about what the public wants. They want to protect the rights of the owners of the music you might play. Reason the price is so high now is the "world wide" aspect! That's why the zip code idea could reduce those costs.
 
What, stations broadcasting worldwide instead of broadcasting to one local area is going to cost artists another solid-gold toilet seat? C'mon, X... don't tell me you've bought into the RIAA's load of bull. I get the idea behind it, but the mathematics just aren't there to support the argument.
 
I didn't say I bought it, Josh. It is the reality of the RIAA deal. Because of the potential of the "world wide" performance, the RIAA feels the artists deserve the royalties from that stage - even though the broadcast may only be listened to locally! It wasn't my doing. Read the agreement and look into the royalty figures!

And, that doesn't even consider the AFTRA part of the deal. Now, stations can't run certain commercials on their internet streams because of the AFTRA demand for a "world wide" royalty for their performances! Again, it has to do with the size of the POTENTIAL audience.

Both AFTRA and RIAA have figured one day somebody is going to make money broadcasting over the Internet - and they have assured themselves of getting their share of it!
 
I realize the reality of it, I just don't agree with either organization. I just wasn't sure if you did or didn't.

At least with the AFTRA mess, broadcasters are able to block commercials with AFTRA talent... yes, leading many to block out their own advertising, but some have gotten creative and begun streaming local-only advertising in the commercial breaks (WHYI is one station I've noticed doing so). So at least there are ways of getting around that part of the problem.

I'm just not willing to give up the ability to listen to stations over long distances because the RIAA feel like abusing their power.
 
Problem is this: under the current RIAA and AFTRA deals, it is hard for an Internet station to be profitable! The royalties are so high.

Now, go back to my orgininal idea of limiting access to a stream to a zip code within the station's metro! Reduce the royalties accordingly and let stations begin to grow providing local service and catering to local advertisers.

Heck, I think someone could be successful doing a station that catered to a neighborhood. Imagine if you were doing news and information about what is going on in Ardmore! There could be shows featuring the alderman and county commission that represent that area. People would listen.

Who would advertise? Thruway Center, the restaurants in the area, etc. Not going to get rich, but someone could make a nice living at it.
 
True... and I've always said that Internet radio was going to thrive locally. I'm just concerned that, since we're a very mobile society, people who are still interested in the goings-on in their past hometowns are going to be turned off by the fact that they can't rely on the local stations in those towns because the RIAA and AFTRA have limited the streams to those areas alone. I, for one, love to listen to stations from Miami, Seattle, Wilmington, DE, New York, and various other cities across the country. That's what makes Internet radio so great... you can still listen to your favorite stations no matter where you are. Again, I think the RIAA and AFTRA both need to drop this stupid idea of higher royalty fees for Internet broadcasting and let the transition to the format happen naturally without interference. If there's enough public demand for them to do so, they'll have to at some point.
 
Problem is, Josh, you are a radio junkie! The people who make stations financially successful are listeners who are interested in their local communities.

Again, the RIAA and AFTRA could care less about public demand and public opinion. They have no direct dealings with the public. Their target is the broadcaster (both over the air and the Internet) and they have the law on their side.

Only way to change those deals is to change the law! US copyright law allows performers to be compensated for their performance based on the potential size of the audience - not the actual size (although the streaming royalties are generally tied to the number of listeners, the numbers are way out of wack).

Over the air radio stations pay based on a percentage of their annual billing. Music stations pay a blanket rate that allows them to play any licensed music in any way they choose. Talk stations pay a per program license that allows them unlimited "incidntal use" of licensed music (bumpers, themes, etc). Featured play (over one minute) is charged by the quarter hour. The rate depends on the daypart.

What they should do is allow a flat fee to add an internet stream to an over-the air license. There should be a small charge for Internet only performances, with an adjustment each year based on revenue generated by the Internet station.

Don't hold your breath!
 
Makes sense... though here's how the licensing for Internet streams should measure potential audience (having streamed myself at several points, I know this is easily doable): each month, the capacity for listeners at any given time (based on bandwidth, of course), the number of listeners and average TSL on a stream should be measured. Those figures would determine the licensing fee for the following month. Obviously to start off with, there would have to be a cover-all fee (they certainly aren't going to let broadcasters just get a free month!). But those statistics are easily found on any streaming server.
 
Lots of record keeping, however, Josh!

What would be wrong with the over-the-air model? That is based on last year's revenue and sets the rate for the next year. All you have to do is report your annual revenue. I suppose there would have to be some basic, flat rate for those who stream and have no revenue - but the potential for Internet radio will never be fully realized under the current plan.
 
I don't know if the new HD2 formats are online yet, but I noticed that the Entercom stations in the Triad--- 97.1 QMG, 102 Jamz, 98-7 Simon, etc.--- now stream over the Internet--- but the streams are not open to the public; you have to register to listen to them, like on CC's WMAG stream. Sounds like the geographic restriction others on this thread have been talking about...
 
I doubt the Entercom login requirement is a geographic restriction. There would be no advantage to it at this point of the RIAA and AFTRA agreements.

I suspect it is more of a promotional matter. They call it the preferred listener club and ask for e-mail, birthday, zip code. My guess is they offer e-mail blasts to their advertisers based on zip codes, etc.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom